2 3 Photographic imports, in the last 4 years alone have gained 345, or an average of 86 points per year while our Exports gained only 82 points or about 20 points per year, and manufacturers' shipments gained only 40 points, or 10 points per year. Growth of imports in important product areas The next series of charts shows the strong growth of imports in various important product areas, namely: Chart 3 shows photographic lenses imported separately. Of course, many more lenses are imported than this since each imported camera, etc., has one or more lenses. The 1958 Census of Manufactures shows value of domestic manufacturers' shipments of lenses declined more than 40 percent just from 1954 to 1958. 3 U.S. IMPORTS OF PHOTOGRAPHIC LENSES MILL. 8 Chart 4 shows imports of still cameras. We have previously called your attention to the fact that in 1947 American manufacturers had 83 percent of the dollar volume and 79 percent of the units in precision still cameras in the $35 to $100 price range. In 1959 we had only 31 percent of the dollars and 35 percent of the units. Today our share is probably less than 25 percent of our domestic market. ta.c 4 U.S. IMPORTS OF STILL CAMERAS (ALL TYPES) MILL. S 22.5 Chart 5, which is in dollars, shows the rapid rise in motion picture camera imports. Charts 6 and 7, which are in units, show the situation as to 8-millimeter motion picture cameras. Note in chart 6 the rapid growth of imports, principally from Japan, to a level of just over 200,000 in 1961, and, in chart 7, the fact that these have already taken over 25 percent of the total domestic market. Now, 8-millimeter motion picture equipment was originated, engineered, and further perfected in a never-ending process of advance by American manufacturers who also developed the very substantial market for these products. They were not made in Japan, that is, not until recently, and now, as you can see (chart 7), Japan is threatening to repeat in this market what was done in the precision still camera field. Isn't this a good example of the fact that foreign manufacturers will never be content to supply what we don't make? It can be much more profitable to copy what we are doing and, in effect, appropriate our years of research, engineering, and product and market development work. With volume up 21⁄2 times, what about employment? With manufacturers' shipments up 21⁄2 times in value since 1950, a substantial increase in employment would be expected. 81843-62-pt. 5- -13 But instead, our employment (BLS) has remained rather steadily in the 65,000 to 70,000 range. But even more striking and disturbing is the steady decline in the proportion of production workers in our work force-chart 9from almost 77 percent in 1947 down to just under 58 percent currently. We actually have fewer (39,800) production workers today than we had in 1953 (48,200) or at any time since 1950. What if employment had kept pace with shipments? What is the indicated job loss and what has caused it? The following table will provide a starting point: U. S. PHOTOGRAPHIC MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY 9 Drastic Decline of Production Workers 100 % 75 50 25 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 If employment had kept pace with shipments: (1) present employment would be; (2) present employment, actual; (3) deficit Deficits in employment indicated above arise from such factors as: (3) Constant drive of American industry to bring costs down and improve product. (4) Automation. We have been continuously under pressure to produce more product with less labor content in order to try to be competitive with foreign producers whose wage rates are in no instance more than 30 percent of ours and in some instances are not much more than 10 percent of ours. (5) The need, in some product areas, to have precision parts, subassemblies, and even completed products made abroad. (6) Plants or manufacturing arrangements abroad. (7) Direct loss of volume due to imports, e.g., the 200,000 8-millimeter motion picture cameras represent a loss of a year's full-time employment for about 700 American workers, not including employment on the part of suppliers of materials, etc., and for lenses. It seems clear that the ability of an industry such as ours to maintain its total domestic employment levels is partly conditioned upon its readiness and ability to make manufacturing arrangements abroad when foreign competition forces it. However, there is evdently a limit beyond which transfer of production abroad will result in a loss in total employment in the domestic industry. Adverse foreign import treatment of American photographic products We have done everything we could for many years to try to increase our exports, but we run up against substantial barriers at every turn which are, by no means, limited to duties. Secretary Hodges said that "trade is a two-way street" and that "frequently the same industrial items appear both as imports and exports." We have stressed this point in our statements to the Committee for Reciprocity Information and are particularly resentful of the fact that after more than 25 years of reciprocal trade agreement negotiations, duties applicable to imports of our products in other major producing countries (the countries with the best markets for photographic products) are virtually unchanged while most U.S. photographic duties have been reduced-many of them by as much as 40 to 75 percent. Because of our much higher labor costs, competitively we are more in need of such concessions than are the foreign producers. We have selected film as the product area to illustrate this situation since it accounts for more than 25 percent of all U.S. imports and more than 70 percent of imports in the so-called "zero bargaining" group 862 in Secretary Hodges' list. Chart 14 shows that we all started off about even in 1930 with tariffs of about 25 percent. The other countries have maintained their rates virtually unchanged and, when reduced slightly, other charges were raised to offset or more than offset the reduction in the duty. This chart may also serve to illustrate another point-we have to such an extent given away our valuable concessions without adequate quid pro quo that now we have little left to bargain with. Remembering that this is the major volume category in group 862, do you think EEC will be in the least interested in going to a zero external tariff? |